Re: B. (D.)
ORB File No: 8465
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. W. Loza Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: B. (D.) Counsel: Ms. K. Stein
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Adiele
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 14, 2026)
Introduction
On January 12, 2024, the accused, B. (D.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of sexual assault, and commit an indecent act, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. B. (D.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 24th, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Eastern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 31st, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (the “Hospital”) to conduct B. (D.)’s annual review hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. B. (D.) was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. K. Stein. A Hospital Report dated March 6th, 2026, was entered as Exhibit No. 1 and a CPIC Response Report as Exhibit No. 2.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether B. (D.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition which was also the least restrictive and least onerous take into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties
Dr. Adiele, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended that B. (D.) remain detained in Hospital but requested that he be granted travel passes within Canada for up to two weeks accompanied by staff or an approved person.
Mr. Shultz, on behalf of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital regarding the detention order but wanted to hear the evidence before agreeing to the travel passes.
Ms. Stein advanced the position that her client should be conditionally discharged. In the alternative, if he were to receive a Detention Disposition, she agreed that travel passes should be added to his current privileges.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from the Hospital Report, as follows:
“September 03, 2022 - Sexual assault
According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, on this date at about 7:30 AM, the victim … was in the Parliament Transit Station looking for maps when B. (D.) tried to speak to her. She could not understand what B. (D.) was saying, and she tried to ignore him. The victim took the Light Rail Transit (LRT) to Tunney’s Pasture, and B. (D.) followed and sat in front of her. B. (D.) continued speaking to her or in her direction, and he was making eye contact. The victim got off the LRT and went into an elevator, and B. (D.) followed suit. An unknown part was in the elevator with them. When the door closed, B. (D.) slapped the victim’s buttocks, which the victim described as “firm and intentional.” She told him “don’t do that.” All parties exited the elevator and walked outside the station while B. (D.) continued saying things to her that she could not decipher. The victim walked to her workplace and noted that B. (D.) was immediately behind her. She entered the building and noticed that he was still outside the building. As such, the victim called police, and officers attended and located him a short distance away. The victim confirmed with officers that they had the correct individual.
October 25, 2023 - Commit an indecent act with intent or insult or offend another (two counts)
According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, on this date at about 7:45 AM, B. (D.) was in the Starbucks located in Orleans. He initially followed a female to her place of work, a dental clinic, as he made moaning and groaning sounds behind her. A witness heard B. (D.) mumbling, and also observed him with his hand in a blue bag down the front of his pants. B. (D.) followed the woman into the dental clinic, and he continued to mumble to himself and also hit himself in the head. As he exited the clinic, the witness observed him to have his right hand down the front of his pants in the groin region, where his hand was moving up and down in a stroking motion. B. (D.) returned to the Starbucks location and sat down at a table, where another witness observed him pleasuring himself in a sexual manner. The witness observed B. (D.) to have his hand in a blue transparent bag down the front of his pants while appearing to grip his penis. His hand was vigorously moving up and down for about eight full motions while his eyes were closed and he was moaning and grunting with pleasure.”
Background Information
- B. (D.)’s background information, psychiatric history, substance abuse history and legal history are set out in detail in the hospital report and do not have to be repeated but the following passages are in particular relevant:
“B. (D.) was homeless for a few months leading up to the index offences, where he was evicted from his mother’s house due to her unhappiness about his “laziness”, which he attributed to his depression. He was making ends meet through Ontario Works. He has remained at OCDC while on the waitlist for admission to The Royal’s Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU).
B. (D.) was born in the city of Bukavu, on the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. His mother did not consume any alcohol or drugs (prescribed or unprescribed) while she was pregnant with him. The pregnancy was uneventful, and B. (D.) arrived on time. He met his developmental milestones at the expected ages.
The family initially moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba. The family suffered racial abuse in Winnipeg, and B. (D.) got most of the abuse, where children used to punch him. This resulted in the mother keeping the children inside to prevent harassment. It was added that the family lived in a “rough neighbourhood” in Winnipeg, with “drug needles on the street” and there was “always fighting.” The family then moved to Ottawa in 2017, which B. (D.) did not like due to leaving his friends behind. They initially lived in the shelter housing system in Ottawa until he could find proper accommodations in February 2018.
B. (D.) was removed from the mother’s home when he was placed in the William E. Hay Detention Centre on two instances in 2019 as well as 2021. He did move back home in between the two incarcerations, but the mother advised that he continued to engage in a number of behavioural difficulties while there.
Due to the behavioural issues in the home as well as ongoing legal involvement, B. (D.) was housed at A Different Street through the John Howard Society in 2022 and 2023. B. (D.) previously informed the writer that he did not like the program, stating that the other tenants were using drugs, which made it difficult for him to avoid cannabis. He also recalled being asked to leave the programming in May 2023 due to not attending the meetings.
B. (D.) had previous cognitive assessments done, which showed that his overall cognitive functioning was in the Low Average range. Behavioural reports from his teachers also indicated significant elevations on all scales (e.g., inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, executive functioning, peer relations, and defiance/aggression).”
B. (D.) reported that he was smoking cannabis on a daily basis, estimating about an ounce every two weeks when he was residing at his mother’s home and then his friend’s home. However, he was rarely smoking cannabis when he was homeless, where he spent most of his cheque on an annual Anytime Fitness membership, a basketball, and alcohol. He estimated smoking less than half a gram every few days during that period of time.
B. (D.) said he was irregularly consuming cocaine, perhaps up to once per year. The last time he used was about three weeks before the index offences, where he used four lines of cocaine.
B. (D.) added that he occasionally consumed mushrooms, where he used 7 grams on two occasions, perhaps a few days before the index offences. He said that mushrooms do not really do much for him, aside from making him feel uncomfortable in his own skin. He said he would only use substances if his friends were influencing him.
A review of B. (D.)’s CPIC showed that all his previous offences were under Youth Justice Court, and he had no adult offences listed.
B. (D.)’s current diagnoses consist of the following:
a) Other specified schizophrenia and other psychotic disorder;
b) Cannabis use disorder, moderate, in early remission; and
c) Antisocial personality disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated March 6, 2026, the CPIC Response Report as well as the testimony of Dr. Adiele.
Dr. Adiele informed the Board that B. (D.) had done well in the preceding reporting period. He noted that he had moved through the Hospital’s level system very quickly. At the time of the hearing, B. (D.) was on a temporary leave to the Murray Street residence, and it was hoped that he would be fully discharged to this program sometime in April.
The doctor testified that B. (D.) had been dedicated to doing what was needed to move through the system. He had completed his high school and had done training for employment. He was now looking for a job.
The treatment team considered whether B. (D.) was ready for a conditional discharge and concluded that it would be premature at this time for the following reasons:
B. (D.) engaged in several incidents during the past year in which he was not willing or able to follow the Hospital rules when exercising his privileges. These incidents are detailed in the Hospital Report but include, returning to the Hospital late, purchasing food and other items for other patients and being argumentative with the Hospital staff.
B. (D.) had not yet been discharged from the Hospital and some time living in the community was required to see how he manages.
The Hospital need to ensure that B. (D.) obtained the appropriate level of support when in the community and therefore the Hospital needs to be able to approve his housing.
Dr. Adiele stated that if B. (D.) was able to get a job and be successful living in the community for the coming year, the Hospital would most likely request a conditional discharge at his next review hearing.
Dr. Adiele noted that B. (D.) is very capable and can care for himself. It is possible that he may be able to live in his own accommodation in the coming year. He intends to apply to Algonquin College for a HVAC program that would start in September. If he were to get accepted, he would want to live closer to the school and the Hospital would want to approve his accommodation and ensure that he was appropriately supervised.
Dr. Adiele stated that B. (D.)’s most likely scenario to decompensate would involve substance use. When he takes cannabis things do not go well for B. (D.). His day-to-day functioning is negatively impacted; he becomes mentally unstable and becomes more likely to engage in criminal activity. If B. (D.) were to return to school, he would be in a cohort that had more access to cannabis. Dr. Adiele did point out that B. (D.) has already spent a lot of time in the community and there have been no reports of substance use. He stated that regardless of this, the Hospital would like to be able to monitor B. (D.) and know where he was living to ensure that his environment would not add to the likelihood of substance use.
Dr. Adiele stated that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public as he could only be brought back to the Hospital once he had experienced a decompensation. The Hospital needed to have the ability to monitor B. (D.) and bring him in if he began to revert to substance use.
The doctor noted that B. (D.) had tested positive for Wellbutrin in July 2025. This is a substance that can cause some people to experience a “high”. Dr. Adiele did not know how B. (D.) obtained the non-prescribed medication but was aware that it was traded on the unit that he resides on.
Regarding the Hospital’s request for the travel passes, Mr. Shultz asked the doctor how he expected these passes to be used. The doctor stated that B. (D.) has family in Manitoba and Alberta that he would like to visit with his mother, who is an approved person. The doctor did not think that they would go often, not more than once or twice a year for about a week at a time. The Hospital would expect B. (D.) to provide an itinerary to the Hospital and check in each night before he went to bed. If B. (D.) became unwell while out of province, his mother could call the Hospital and get some support to come up with a plan to manage him. B. (D.)’s mother is very responsible and reliable and is able to work with the treatment team. She has a good understanding of her son’s illness and the signs of decompensation. She has also joined a group at the Hospital for family members.
Dr. Adiele was asked what a positive year would look like for B. (D.). He stated that if B. (D.) could continue his current trajectory, get a job, or go to school and stay well, then the treatment team would be happy to support a conditional discharge next year. Dr. Adiele agreed with counsel for the Crown that moving into his own housing could be de-stabilizing for B. (D.) and that care needed to be taken in the coming year to help ensure that it was a successful transition.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Adiele noted that when B. (D.) arrived at the Hospital, he was on many medications and that these have been dialed down significantly with no change in his mental state. Many of his symptoms appeared to have been substance induced and had resolved while in the Hospital. Dr. Adiele agreed that it would be helpful for the Hospital to conduct a diagnostic review over the coming year. He noted that a change in diagnoses would likely not change his recommendations to B. (D.); he should still stay away from substance use and continue to work hard and learn some skills.
A Board member noted an incident from the Hospital Report wherein Mr. Baganlane went for a boat ride but had not included this in his itinerary. Dr. Adiele said that he had been swimming with a friend and then went for a boat ride. The Board member asked if there had been any concern that he would try to leave the country given the close proximity to the United States. Dr. Adiele did not think that this was an issue for B. (D.).
Dr. Adiele did agree that B. (D.) has a history of rule breaking and that this, in conjunction with his criminal offences, as noted in the risk assessment on pages 78 to 81 of the Hospital Report, met the threshold of significant threat. It was hoped that in the coming year, B. (D.) would not engage in substance use or rule breaking and would have more structured activities.
No further evidence was called.
Submissions of the Parties
At the conclusion of the hearing Dr. Adiele maintained his position that B. (D.) remained a significant threat to the safety of the public. He requested a continuation of current detention order with the addition of travel passes within Canada for up to 7 days accompanied by an approved person.
Mr. Shultz joined the Hospital’s recommendation, including the addition of the travel passes. He noted that B. (D.) would need to have his itinerary approved in advance and his mother would be accompanying him.
Mr. Shultz commended B. (D.) on the year that he had had and the progress that he had made. Despite this, he submitted that a conditional discharge was premature at this time for the following reasons:
a) B. (D.) is not sure where he will be living in the coming year. He is hoping to go to school in Ottawa in the fall and even if he does not attend school, it is likely that his address will change over the course of the next reporting period. The Hospital wants to retain the ability to approve B. (D.)’s housing, but it is not possible to have “accommodation as approved” as part of a conditional discharge.
b) The Hospital has only worked with B. (D.) when he has been well. It is not clear if he would return to the Hospital voluntarily if he were to decompensate.
c) B. (D.) has engaged in multiple rule violations in the past year. This, in conjunction with his historical breach of court orders, is concerning when considering a conditional discharge.
d) B. (D.) had one test positive for Wellbutrin in the past year as well as two tests that were positive for substances in the year prior. Substance use is a live risk factor and necessitates the team being able to return B. (D.) to the Hospital quickly.
- Ms. Stein submitted that a conditional discharge would be appropriate given the positive year that B. (D.) had had. She stated that the order court could list the Murray Street home as B. (D.)’s address and, if he wanted to move, the parties could request an early review hearing. She also noted that conditions could be put in place for drug testing to ensure that the Hospital was able to catch any substance use. Finally, Ms. Stein stated that, if the Board did not order a conditional discharge, her client was in agreement with the additional travel passes as suggested by the Hospital.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that B. (D.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
The Board unanimously finds that B. (D.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Adiele. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report including the risk assessment contained therein. B. (D.) carries diagnoses of “other specified schizophrenia and other psychotic disorder”; antisocial personality disorder and Cannabis use disorder. He has engaged in substance use in both of the last two reporting periods and has routinely broken hospital rules in the past year. He is now transitioning to community living and will need to be monitored closely by the Hospital to ensure that this is a smooth and safe process for him as well as the general public.
Despite the incidents noted above, B. (D.) has had a very positive year. He has completed his high school diploma and is hoping to attend college in the fall. He has maintained consistent adherence to his long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication and has completed a number of therapeutic programs at the Hospital. He has the support of his mother, who has become more engaged with the treatment team.
Having found that B. (D.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board must consider decide the most appropriate and necessary disposition. While B. (D.) is requesting a conditional discharge, the Board agrees with the Hospital that it would be premature at this juncture. B. (D.) is at the beginning of his transition into the community. He is expected to move to the residence at Murray Street within the next month. B. (D.) is hoping to go to school in the Ottawa area in the fall which would require him to relocate to a new accommodation. The Board agrees with the Hospital that the treatment team should be involved in assessing and approving any accommodation in the coming year. If the Board granted a conditional discharge, the Hospital would not have the power to approve his accommodation. B. (D.) would be required to reside at one location, but this would not allow for him to move to another, less supervised accommodation or to move so that he could attend school.
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat B. (D.) poses to the safety of the public while still meeting their needs, is a continuation of his existing Detention Disposition with travel passes for up to 14 days, up to two times per year, within Canada, accompanied by staff and/or a person approved by the person in charge. This will allow him to travel to see his family in other provinces while ensuring the safety of the public.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Adiele and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, B. (D.)’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Chamberlain
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board